Haryana

StateCommission

A1091/2014

M/s Premier Agro Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1091 of 2014

Date of Institution: 27.11.2014                                                              Date of Decision: 15.01.2016

 

 

M/s Premier Agro Industries Plot No.172, Sector-3, HSIIDC, Industrial Area, Karnal (Haryana) through its proprietor, Shri Vivek Sheel.

Appellant

Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Gagan Building, G.T.road, Karnal-132001 (Haryana).

                                     Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Vivek Sheel appellant in person.

                             Shri Naveen Kapoor, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

It was alleged by the complainant that it’s firm was insured for Rs.30,00,000/.  Due to thunder storm in the intervening night of 24/25.06.2010 shed had fallen down. Intimation was sent to opposite party/O.P. immediately.  DDR No.9 dated 26.06.2010 was also registered.  After submitting claim, O.P. appointed surveyor, who assessed loss as Rs.1,01,763/, but, it was reported that claim was not covered under the policy. O.P. rejected claim without any reason.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and compensation be awarded as mentioned in complaint.

2.      In reply O.P. alleged that the claim was not covered by the terms and conditions of insurance policy, so it was rightly repudiated vide order dated 28.07.2012.  Mr. T.P.Singh (surveyor) assessed loss but opined that the same was not covered by policy. The shed was damaged due to weakness of pillars. 

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.10.2014 and directed as under:-

“We accept the present complaint and direct the OP to  make the payment of Rs.1,01,763/to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.12.2012 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/ for the harassment and agony caused to him alongwith a sum of Rs.2200/ towards legal fee and litigation expenses.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Complainant argued that initially surveyor asked to prepare estimate of rehabilitation of damaged shed for Rs.Seven lacs, which would be sufficient for claim.  When protested, he asked them to submit revised estimate according to the cost of construction for Rs.8,12,400/, but, they incurred cost of Rs.8,01,157/.  The normal life of the shed is 50 years and RCC building is 100 years, but, the surveyor considered age of shed as 30 years.  He did not allow the compensation qua construction of roof.  He assessed loss of Rs.1,01,763/ only which is as under

“T.P. Singh Surveyor Report Assessment of loss (
Report attached)

“Assessed loss is Rs.101763.00 subject to policy condition”

1.Life of shed is 30 years.

2.Calculation of surveyor submitted to insurance company.

Expenses as per old estimate           7,02,150.00

Less disallowed Expenses                3,66,024.00

Allowable expenses only roof            3,36,126.00

i.e. Steel Truss               96000.00

Asbrestros Sheets           168750.00

Sheet Hooks                     7500.00

Core Sand                         4000.00

Cement                              12500.00           

Labour Shed                     27376.00

Labour Massonary           20000.00

                                           

                                           336126/

Less Depreciation 50%                                              (-) 168063.00

Less Salvage 3000 Kg (@ 18/    54000.00

                             Hooks                    1800.00

                             Misc.                        500.00

                                                                             (-) 56300.00

                                                                                111763.00

Less Excess clause                                          (-) 10000.00

Insurance Claim payable                                      101763.00”

 

          This assessment is altogether wrong and they be allowed the compensation as detailed below:-

                   “Calculation of insurance claim to be receivable

                   Calculation on 50 years of life of building

1.Actual Expenses (Statement Attached)     801157.00

2.Less Depreciation 30% on 610757.00       183227.00

Less Salvage (as per surveyor)                  56300.00

Less excess clause (as per surveyor)        10000.00

                                                              249527.00

                                                              (-)      249527.00

                                                                        551630.00

3.Add Rent Loss for Six month

(Rs.8000.00 per month) (+)                          48000.00

                        Total claim payable     5,99,630.00”

7.      On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that this matter has already been decided by other Bench of this Commission vide order dated 12.03.2015 passed in appeal No.30 of 2015 titled as The Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Premier Agro Industries.  It was no where opined therein that compensation, awarded by the District Forum, was on the lower side. When the matter is already adjudicated upon the same cannot be re-agitated.  Even otherwise, surveyor assessed loss taken into consideration every aspect and rightly assessed claim to the tune of Rs.1,01,763/.  Learned District forum has relied upon report of the surveyor and there is no ground to disturb the same.

8.      As per arguments of learned counsel for the respondent O.P. it cannot be opined that complainant is not having right to ask for relief after the order dated 12.03.2015, as mentioned above,  because in that case only it was decided that whether loss was covered by insurance or not.  It was opined therein that this loss was covered by terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy.  It was  nowhere mentioned therein that the compensation awarded by the learned District  Forum was appropriate.

10.    More so, respondent has failed to show that they agitated about quantum of compensation in that appeal.  In this way this dispute was not in issue. That appeal was filed on 12.01.2015, whereas this appeal was filed on 27.11.2014. The respondent should have brought the fact of this appeal to the notice of that Bench and they could have been decided together.  So, this relief can be looked into.

11.    Now question comes about loss.

12.    If we go through the evidence available on the file, it will be clear that compensation claimed by complainant is on higher side and loss assessed by insurance company-respondent is on lower side.  It is specifically alleged by complainant that initially he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.7,02,000/, but, lateron the same was increased to Rs.8,12,400/. Complainant has failed to prove that surveyor asked him to assess loss to the extent of Rs.7,02,000/. How the cost increased is not properly explained by him.  As per Ex.C13, complainant submitted claim of Rs.9,79,322/. It shows that he is increasing the cost one way or the other to get more compensation.  However loss assessed by surveyor is on lower side. As per his report Ex.C11 the actual loss was Rs.3,36,126/. There was no reason to decrease the loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,763/.  He has not submitted any parameter on the basis of which the 50% depreciation was applied.  He did not consider the cost of construction of walls.  So in these circumstances the complainant is entitled for actual loss i.e. Rs.3,36,126/.

13.    In view of above discussion, impugned order dated 27.10.2014 is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled for Rs.3,36,126/ instead of Rs.1,01,763/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization besides compensation awarded for harassment and mental agony etc.

14.    With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

 

January 19th, 2016     Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.